Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dracos wrote:
Wait wait wait.

If a unit's height covers less than 25% of the TLOS of the unit behind it, that unit is not afforded a cover save.

Is this not correct?

If a unit's height covers less than 25% of the TLOS from the firing unit to the unit being fired upon then the unit being fired upon is not afforded a cover save.

However, if the shots go through the gaps in a unit, regardless of the height of the models in the "Gap" unit, then the rules afford a cover save to the unit being fired upon.

Basically if a firing unit can see a model (Target) through a gap in a different unit then that model gains a cover save even if the intervening unit is a unit of Ork Boyz and the target is a 15" high model.

Wow I don't have my rulebook here at work, but that is seriously messed up if true. I'm going to have to reread that section I guess. I thought the rule was with respect to the gap between models leaving the unit visible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which I have already covered. Shocking I know.

Not really, because you didn't explain when you are shooting over and when you are shooting through.
Shocking, right?

If you are right next to the ork boyz, and shooting at the titan, then your shots are not going OVER the unit, but through it.

Even if you are standing 12" away? Because the rules are unclear about it.

So, are you still arguing HIWPI? Please note if so.

I did.

This is the general rule. The exception is when you are shooting through a unit, in which case EVEN IF they are ENTIRELY VISIBLE then you grant them a cover save, The rules explicitly state this

Which doesn't make sense at all.
The intent is quite clear, the models are actually moving all the time and they just stand still for gameplay-reasons. (page 9)
That implies that a gap isn't really a gap, because the models aren't standing still like a statue.

Therefore the best way to play it is to act as if there is a "wall" with the height of the unit.

Just for the sake of argument, what defines when a unit is "shooting through a unit" versus shooting over a unit?

 Dracos wrote:
Just for the sake of argument, what defines when a unit is "shooting through a unit" versus shooting over a unit?

RAW? Nothing as far as I know.

HYWPI?
I think the 25%-rule explains it.
If the target is 25% hidden, that means the chance to 'miss' is too big or they can't get a decent shot.

I think it is shooting thru if any part of the model would cover the target. Shooting over if no part of the model would cover it.

But that would contradict with the part where units get a cover-save if the model is 25% obscured.

Yes, that applies to terrain.
The part about intervening units tells us to treat it "as if it was behind terrain".

So I guess that even intervening units have to cover them for 25%

No b/c the BRB give the exception that even if no part of model is covered when shooting thru a unit......

But I would say if a unit is below on a hill and no part of would cover it you are shooting over it.

Kangodo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which I have already covered. Shocking I know.

Not really, because you didn't explain when you are shooting over and when you are shooting through.
Shocking, right?

Erm, sorry, I thought the words "over" and "through" were fairly self explanatory. Apparently not.

Kangodo wrote:

If you are right next to the ork boyz, and shooting at the titan, then your shots are not going OVER the unit, but through it.

Even if you are standing 12" away? Because the rules are unclear about it.

Really? See above. You see this thing called "True Line of Sight", that lets you know when your True Line of Sight is traced THROUGH or OVER. Shocking.

Kangodo wrote:

So, are you still arguing HIWPI? Please note if so.

I did.

Nope, not when you told me to "go away" you didnt. Or in that post just now. Shocking. Found that citation yet that "MOST PEOPLE" play the way that most people I know dont?

Kangodo wrote:

This is the general rule. The exception is when you are shooting through a unit, in which case EVEN IF they are ENTIRELY VISIBLE then you grant them a cover save, The rules explicitly state this

Which doesn't make sense at all.

Apparnetly you are still unclear on certain words, such as "abstraction". The game is an abstraction. To represent (abstractly!) unit cohesion, you have a maximum spacing between models. In order to stop you explouting this gap, to deny saves, even if you spread out you *abstractly* still grant a cover save.

Kangodo wrote:The intent is quite clear, the models are actually moving all the time and they just stand still for gameplay-reasons. (page 9)

The actual, explicit rule that explicitly states otherwise is also quite clear. Meaning your clear intent is not. Given it is also the same rule as 5th.....I would suggest that this never FAQd rule, that has lasted two editions, is *probably* what they meant.

Kangodo wrote:That implies that a gap isn't really a gap, because the models aren't standing still like a statue.

Therefore the best way to play it is to act as if there is a "wall" with the height of the unit.

Nope, the BEST way to play it, absent ambiguity (which there isnt in this rule) is by the clear as a bell rules. Or are you going to make up more statements, like "most people" playing it the way you do?

Still waiting on a citation for that. Any chance you could find something? Anything?

General and only warning: turn the snark down, or you'll be taking a vacation.

I have to disagree with Nos that the rules are "clear as a bell". I think this area has some ambiguity, and personally I come down in a rather different position.

In 6th, the rules have been tweaked a bit and the way different models get cover is pretty consistent. MCs can get cover saves from area terrain the same way other models do, and vehicles are the only exception. Every model is subject to needing to be 25% hidden (25% of the targeted facing still, for vehicles) if they're not in area terrain, as opposed to any tiny piece of the model's body (or 50% body/facing for MCs and vehicles), like in 5th.

Three other changes:
1. Cover saves are now model by model instead of "all or none"; in 5th, if half or more of the models in the targeted unit were in cover from the perspective of half or more of the firing models, the whole unit got a cover save. Now each model either is in cover or not in cover.
2. The other thing that changed in the requirement above is that instead of "half or more of the firing models", as in 5th, it's "at least one" firing model.
3. Area terrain no longer generally confers a cover save for shooting ACROSS it. If the targeted model isn't actually in it, it needs to be 25% hidden. With the exception of Forests (see page 102); which have a specific rule that if at least one of the firing models is drawing LOS across a forest, cover is granted.

Other than area terrain and shooting across forests, the only other time you can get a cover save in 6th without being 25% hidden, is when you're being shot across/through an intervening unit. See page 18. While it does say that a 5+ cover save is conferred in the same way as behind terrain, the next two sentences tell us that "Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it."

So, we know that a model which is totally visible to the firing model can still be in cover if LOS is traced to them between to models in an intervening unit.

The area of ambiguity comes in determining WHEN LOS counts as being drawn between the models, as opposed to OVER them.

Back in 5th the guideline that was generally used was to draw LOS from the firer's eyes (which is still the standard, see p8), to all parts of the target's body- head to toe. If you could draw a line from the eyes to the bottom of the feet without that line going through the plane drawn between the tops of two models in the intervening unit, you had a clean LOS and no cover.

Now in 6th, it would appear that the same procedure should be used, but instead of the bottom of the feet, we've got to go with whatever point on the model constitutes the 25% line for that model's mass/silhouette, as the requirement is now 25% hidden. And it looks to me like that empty air between models in an intervening unit is to be treated (per page 18) as something that confers cover saves.

At least that's my take on it.

A couple quotes I found relevant when rereading this section given this thread:

Cover saves p.18

"Often, you'll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, also known as being in cover."

"Determining Cover Saves
If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body [...] is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save."

"Intervening Models
If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit [...], it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it."

I wonder if the first text quoted is to separate the concepts of "partially hidden" and "obscured by terrain" as two separate ways of being in cover?

This is less clear than I thought it was too. I have played, and seen played, that if the intervening unit would not provide 25% obscured status given the "filling in" of the gaps between models, then no cover save. But now I'm really not sure.

Thanks all for the replies.

At least it looks like I was right to be confused. I'm going to reread the whole thing again slowly now

I do definitely agree that this is bad ruleswriting though.

the rules for Int model state that:
if your target is behind intervieneing models, even if the target is COMPLETLY VISABLE, and that the 25% rule does not apply to Int models, the target gets a 5+ cover

GW has purposefully put a penalty on shooting at a unit that isnt the closest/behind other units for several editions now, just to back up that RAW above with some more RAI

Cover saves are also based on a per model basis when looking at a squad. It is entirely possible for a squad of SM to get no cover saves on the closest models then as casualties get deeper and go behind an intervening unit they would get a 5+. It is interesting how the rules conflict. I believe proper resolution is if the model would be 25% obscured should the intervening unit actually be in the way. It is a bit obscene to assume that a unit that could never reasonably cover 25% of a model can grant a save by just being spread out across its frontage.

easysauce wrote:
the rules for Int model state that:
if your target is behind intervieneing models, even if the target is COMPLETLY VISABLE, and that the 25% rule does not apply to Int models, the target gets a 5+ cover
GW has purposefully put a penalty on shooting at a unit that isnt the closest/behind other units for several editions now, just to back up that RAW above with some more RAI

That is untrue.
The rules for int-models talk about "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by..."
And on the same page it is explained that you get a cover save for being 25% obscured, indicating that "partially hidden" means 25% or more.

The only 'problem' is that a gap would give cover when it wouldn't get cover if the model stood right before it.

Kangodo wrote:

easysauce wrote:
the rules for Int model state that:
if your target is behind intervieneing models, even if the target is COMPLETLY VISABLE, and that the 25% rule does not apply to Int models, the target gets a 5+ cover
GW has purposefully put a penalty on shooting at a unit that isnt the closest/behind other units for several editions now, just to back up that RAW above with some more RAI

That is untrue.
The rules for int-models talk about "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by..."
And on the same page it is explained that you get a cover save for being 25% obscured, indicating that "partially hidden" means 25% or more.

The only 'problem' is that a gap would give cover when it wouldn't get cover if the model stood right before it.

you need to read the part of interviening models that says the 25% rule specifically does NOT apply, and that even if the model is completly visable to the firer, it still counts as obscured. In no part of the interviening models rule does it impose a % that must be covered, and explicitly removes the 25% rule, and explicitly states "even if the target is completly visable"

hence why when you say "but the target is completly visable, why does it get a save?" then answer is "because intevening models rule gives a cover save when shooting through intervening models, even if the target is comepletly visable"

Kangodo wrote:
So a Warhound Titan is getting coversave because you fire through 2 Ork Boyz?

The intent is quite clear.
Models do not actually stand still, you have to treat them as if they are moving around.
That line is there to stop people from being TFG and denying the cover save.

Best way to treat an intervening unit is to act as if there is a wall that has the same height as the models.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't a warhound titan a vehicle? If so intervening models don't provide a cover save as vehicles have their own rules for determining cover saves.

WSN wrote:


A handy diagram to explain the rule!

Unless that "Attack Dog" is part of the "Manly Tyranid's" unit that marine will get a cover save as he is shooting through another unit.


Unless you're on a building, hill, or other structure changing your elevation I don't believe there's anything allowing you to aim your shooting upwards to shoot over a intervening unit.

He's not. You trace LoS from the eyes and the image shows that the manly Tyranid can look from the toes to the head of his target and not shoot through a unit.

Marine gets no cover save.

rigeld2 wrote:
He's not. You trace LoS from the eyes and the image shows that the manly Tyranid can look from the toes to the head of his target and not shoot through a unit.

Marine gets no cover save.

Thanks for pointing this out! Learn a little something every day here on Dakka.

Mann - where are you getting the idea that firing "through" a unit means anything other than the literal "does your shot pass throught eh unit" that the sentence parses out as?

There is no 25% rule that I can find, and you did not cite where you got this from. The "alarmingly clear" part is because a) you are told you can be completely visibile and b) there are NO rules contradicting the plain-English meaning of "through" in "firing through the gaps" - which is what you are altering.

You are chaging "through" to "through such that 25% of the model is covered"

Because one could claim that his units aim at the head and shots wouldn't go through the models.
instead of "your models shoot at waist-level" we have the 25%-rule.

Again - post where that applies to "shooting through". Page and paragraph. Not an assertion, an actual rule.

Currently we are told to see if models are "shooting through". using TLOS we can determine that 100% accurately with no furthe rrequirements - and no further requirements are given.

TLoS to what? Eyes, chest, waist or legs?

Kangodo wrote:
TLoS to what? Eyes, chest, waist or legs?

What counts for LoS purposes is defined by the rules elsewhere (legs, body, arms, head, not wings or weapons).

Edit: Not tails, either. Makes Gargoyles a pain, actually.

 Janthkin wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
TLoS to what? Eyes, chest, waist or legs?

What counts for LoS purposes is defined by the rules elsewhere (legs, body, arms, head, not wings or weapons).

Exactly this.

You must include the legs, body, arms and head. If you have line of sight over an intervening unit to the legs, body, arms and head then no cover save. If line of sight passes through the gaps in a unit when using TLOS to the legs, body, arms and head of a target model, then cover save is granted.

So in that case I will just say: "My model fires at the head of your big Tyranid, therefore firing over the gap instead of through the gap and he will gain no cover-save."

And that is the entire point of this rules-confusion.
When does a model shoot over a unit/model and when does he shoot through them?
The rule says nothing about where you should aim at.

The most straight-forward and simplest answer to that problem is written on the same page:
<25% obscured = over the unit/model and disallowing a cover save.
25%+ obscured = through the unit/model and thus giving a cover save.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you have line of sight over an intervening unit to the legs, body, arms and head then no cover save. If line of sight passes through the gaps in a unit when using TLOS to the legs, body, arms and head of a target model, then cover save is granted.

Yup, 100% right.
But the problem is when you have line of sight over AND through a unit because the target-model is so large.

You made rule 1: If you have line of sight over an intervening unit to the legs, body, arms and head then no cover save.
And we have rule 2: If line of sight passes through the gaps in a unit when using TLOS to the legs, body, arms and head of a target model, then cover save is granted.

So what if both rule 1 AND 2 apply?


Additional clarification with example and image:


Imagine that there is a huge demon between the mountains, his head reaching to the top of the image.
And the mountains are actually a unit of Space Marines.

When I fire at his legs, the shot will go through the gap and he gets cover.
When I fire at his head, the shot will go over the gap and he gets no cover.

You are saying that the 25%-rule does not apply here.
So please give me the page-number that tells me at what body-part I am supposed to shoot?

Kangodo wrote:
So in that case I will just say: "My model fires at the head of your big Tyranid, therefore firing over the gap instead of through the gap and he will gain no cover-save."

No rules permission to "call your shot". If you can't see him in his entirety (over 75%) he's obstructed.
If, to trace line of sight to the model, you "fire" through a unit (even a gap in a unit) he's obstructed.

The image above is absolutely correct.

Kangodo wrote:
So in that case I will just say: "My model fires at the head of your big Tyranid, therefore firing over the gap instead of through the gap and he will gain no cover-save."

Mind citing a page and graph where this is allowed?

I don't understand the confusion. TLOS is from the eyes of the firer to the entire body of the target.

*If it is physically obscured up to 25%, they get cover.
*If you shoot part of the LOS through a gap of intervening models even though you can see the entire model, they get cover.
*If you can see the entire model OVER a model or OVER the gap between two models, there is no cover.

Closer I am to the gap and taller I am, the better chance I will be seeing over the gap opposed to through it.